The Democratic Party: NRA Pawns?

Brian Doherty | May 26, 2009

The Washington Times thinks so:

Democratic leaders in Congress tend to support more restrictive gun laws but have yielded on the issue since a majority of their rank-and-file members increasingly side with the National Rifle Association (NRA) when votes involve the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Gun-control groups blame the Obama White House for the setbacks, saying the administration kept mum on firearms issues even when shooting incidents killed six at a North Carolina nursing home in March and left 13 dead at an upstate New York immigration center in April......

The NRA gained a major victory when Mr. Obama backed off from a push to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even as top Democrats and administration officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, endorsed the ban.

On Friday, Mr. Obama signed a bill with a provision lifting the prohibition on bringing loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges.

Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress were forced to accept the gun amendment, which was sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, to a bill that added protections to consumers in credit card contracts.

Why might this be? Perhaps because most Americans don't want more federal restrictions on gun rights. I predicted back in January that Obama, whatever his personal feelings on guns, was not apt to lead a new assault on weapons.

Comments

|5.26.09 @ 4:58PM|#

Per New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Montana Senator Jon Testor, Virginia Senator Jim Webb, and other "Blue Dogs" the Dems are taking away the wingnut GlennBeckish paranoid hyperventilation of "They comin' to get mah guns!".

Well, GlennBeck, you fucking paranoid idiot, you can always slavishly hope for the return of the mythical 'Fairness Doctrine'.

Good luck, bud. Lots of paranoid Teabaggers are counting on you.

|5.26.09 @ 5:05PM|#

Oh, and good call Doherty. Give credit where credit is due.

JB|5.26.09 @ 5:57PM|#

shrike, please shut up. Many, many Democrats openly admit to wanting to take people's guns away.

Stop lying on their behalf.

|5.26.09 @ 6:13PM|#

shrike, please shut up. Many, many Democrats openly admit to wanting to take people's guns away.

Its a dead issue, Glenn.

|5.26.09 @ 6:46PM|#

Having studied 2A issues for the past 35 years, I offer the following opinion. The Dems sitting in Congress are not as willing to approach 'third rail' issues that would excite the American voters to pay attention to the political process. Gun control is one of them; witness what happened in 1994.

The Tea Parties are an example of what the Dem left wants to avoid; an energized, informed, aware and angry voter base. Gun control bills have been introduced in the House and Senate right now (HR 45 and others; check the NRA website - ILA section for information.). But the majority of Americans are not in favor of more laws that unduly restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to posess arms for defense of self and property as well as sport. They do favor restrictions on criminal behavior that the Dem left have been reluctant to approach. Considering that the Dems are now firmly in control and want to stay that way for a while (their agenda is better than any other agenda, you know), they realize that blatant support of gun control will jeapordize their control of Congress. A Senator or two and some Representatives; life just became more tricky for Reid, Pelosi and company. As if they are not capable of making it tricky for themselves as it is.

However, the Democrats are busy engaging in other social engineering through legislation efforts that will eventually lead to easier passage of 2A restrictions. Also, it is much easier to approach encroachment of your rights via the Courts than it is through legislation. The recent nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is one example (read Brian Doherty's analysis). I have had conversations with lawyers who have tried cases before her; she is definitley an activist judge who rules not by the reason of law, but by emotion. She definitley supports a strong leftist ruling agenda, rather than a minimalist, libertarian approach to Constitutional law. Some of her rulings have directly impacted public safety in favor of criminal rights.

Another consideration is that the Dems have left gun control issues up to the States; as Justice Scalia left the door open to undefined "reasonable regulation" in Heller, the Dems are willing to give the States the opportunity to regulate 2A rights as thier legislatures see fit. What we do need is a Supreme Court application of the 14th ammendment principle of incorporation of the 2nd ammendment to the States. With the nomination of Sotomayor, this is problematical unless Justice Kennedy swings toward a strict interpretation.

I would truly welcome the Second Circuit to rule like the Ninth Circuit in Nordyke and start the reconfiguration of New York State's insufferable Penal Law Part 265 and 400 regulations. I can only dream of that day at this time.

wayne|5.26.09 @ 7:23PM|#

The Democratic Party: NRA Pawns?

Maybe so. They are doing an end run around the issue by stacking the Supreme Court with gun-confiscators, i.e. Sotomayor, with more to follow. This way they don't have to watch their ball-sacks shrivel in fear when they circumvent the constitution by passing "laws" that are clearly contrary to 2A, and then get called out on their treachery.

|5.26.09 @ 7:35PM|#

The Democratic Party: NRA Pawns?

I certainly hope so.

historian|5.26.09 @ 8:56PM|#

Does the R stand for Rifle or Recovery?

perilisk|5.26.09 @ 8:57PM|#

"Its a dead issue, Glenn."

That is not dead which can eternal lie. And nothing can lie more eternally than politicians.

Mike E.|5.26.09 @ 10:44PM|#

If the Democrats ever become credible defenders of the Second Amendment, they could bury the Republicans once and for all.

Trouble is, they aren't smart enough to know that.

JB|5.26.09 @ 11:33PM|#

If the Democrats ever become credible defenders of the Second Amendment, they could bury the Republicans once and for all.

First they would have to get over their fear of guns. Even thinking about them hurts most Democrats' vaginas.

Its a dead issue, Glenn.

It will be a dead issue once all the Brady bunch is dead and buried.

|5.26.09 @ 11:48PM|#

For singles .... I found a hot place where you can find your rich and sexy partner...
Try your best to enjoy life..[========SugarBabyMeet.com ======]
HOPE YOU CAN FIND YOUR LOVE

spambot|5.27.09 @ 9:57AM|#

There is nothing "mythical" about the Fairness Doctrine shrike. It existed. Now it's potential return may be considered mythical as it probably has low odds on being revived. I assume that is what you meant. However it is supported by at least Pelosi:

"On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

|5.27.09 @ 7:12PM|#

Perhaps the "blue dogs" signal a swing in the Democratic party to more conservative values.



It won't be long before the mistakes of the anointed one begin to show

Unemployment at an all time high, gas is rising. Spending out of control. Judges picked to make their own "justice"



Instead of pawn's maybe we are seeing the beginning of patriots